MORE Screen Hacking a Query...
Hey Folks, I've made a LOT of progress on this Utility I've been working on - to automate conversion of system PRG code to Screens/Forms. However, I've run into a complication that's a bit of a stumper. Just to Prefix the explanation of the problem. To do the Screen Hacking - I create what I call a Base Screen - which has Basic controls in it - including a Container for the creation of required Pop-up windows. I copy that Base Screen to a New screen file - for each program that will be converted. Then I duplicate the basic controls - making copies of the records - to create the new controls on the new screen. I'm now starting to look at implementing Methods - like the Screen Init - in particular, putting into it the Parameters statement from the PRG. I created dummy code - really just Commented code - within the INIT Method in the Base Screen. However, here's the problem. I open up the Base Screen as a DBF file - to look at how that INIT Method is actually implemented. And, of course, I see the Code within the Methods memo field - formatted as a Procedure. No problem there. I got my conversion program to implement that without a problem. The problem lies in the ObjCode memo field. I saw in the Base screen that this ObjCode memo field has cryptically encoded data - lots of strange characters. But, within all those strange characters - I found it showing the word INIT. So - obviously the Init code is in there. But, how to I properly implement this ObjCode memo field. Since, its definitely related - and, on the new screen I generated - the Methods field looks fine when I open the Screen like a DBF. However, when I open the Screen AS a Screen - and I look at the Init Method - its mostly Garbage! I'm sure those familiar with the intricacies of Screen Hacking know what I am talking about - and, hopefully can point me in the right direction. TIA, Kurt --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/16104BC6167B4C02B4BE05DB296C8AF7@Programming2 ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: MORE Screen Hacking a Query...
Leave the OBJCODE field blank and issue a COMPILE FORM yourformname command to build it from your METHOD code. Fred On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Kurt k...@isssusa.com wrote: Hey Folks, I've made a LOT of progress on this Utility I've been working on - to automate conversion of system PRG code to Screens/Forms. However, I've run into a complication that's a bit of a stumper. Just to Prefix the explanation of the problem. To do the Screen Hacking - I create what I call a Base Screen - which has Basic controls in it - including a Container for the creation of required Pop-up windows. I copy that Base Screen to a New screen file - for each program that will be converted. Then I duplicate the basic controls - making copies of the records - to create the new controls on the new screen. I'm now starting to look at implementing Methods - like the Screen Init - in particular, putting into it the Parameters statement from the PRG. I created dummy code - really just Commented code - within the INIT Method in the Base Screen. However, here's the problem. I open up the Base Screen as a DBF file - to look at how that INIT Method is actually implemented. And, of course, I see the Code within the Methods memo field - formatted as a Procedure. No problem there. I got my conversion program to implement that without a problem. The problem lies in the ObjCode memo field. I saw in the Base screen that this ObjCode memo field has cryptically encoded data - lots of strange characters. But, within all those strange characters - I found it showing the word INIT. So - obviously the Init code is in there. But, how to I properly implement this ObjCode memo field. Since, its definitely related - and, on the new screen I generated - the Methods field looks fine when I open the Screen like a DBF. However, when I open the Screen AS a Screen - and I look at the Init Method - its mostly Garbage! I'm sure those familiar with the intricacies of Screen Hacking know what I am talking about - and, hopefully can point me in the right direction. TIA, Kurt --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CAJCBksrcisoH_EoH-9AwiQK=cgx0z5emq_fl-d-8zbu3j1j...@mail.gmail.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: MORE Screen Hacking a Query...
Kurt, Off the top of my head, isn't the memo field simply compiled code. Removing it should force a recompilation and apropriate re-constitution of the correct code in the form you are modifying. VFP checks to see that the compiled code matches the source code but sometimes gets it wrong, which is when you need to do exactly what I have described... it's the same for .prg files and their associated .fxp files that need to be deleted, hence forcing a re-compilation. I think this is what you are getting at Dave C -Original Message- From: ProFox [mailto:profox-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Sent: 04 February 2013 15:16 To: profox@leafe.com Subject: MORE Screen Hacking a Query... Hey Folks, I've made a LOT of progress on this Utility I've been working on - to automate conversion of system PRG code to Screens/Forms. However, I've run into a complication that's a bit of a stumper. Just to Prefix the explanation of the problem. To do the Screen Hacking - I create what I call a Base Screen - which has Basic controls in it - including a Container for the creation of required Pop-up windows. I copy that Base Screen to a New screen file - for each program that will be converted. Then I duplicate the basic controls - making copies of the records - to create the new controls on the new screen. I'm now starting to look at implementing Methods - like the Screen Init - in particular, putting into it the Parameters statement from the PRG. I created dummy code - really just Commented code - within the INIT Method in the Base Screen. However, here's the problem. I open up the Base Screen as a DBF file - to look at how that INIT Method is actually implemented. And, of course, I see the Code within the Methods memo field - formatted as a Procedure. No problem there. I got my conversion program to implement that without a problem. The problem lies in the ObjCode memo field. I saw in the Base screen that this ObjCode memo field has cryptically encoded data - lots of strange characters. But, within all those strange characters - I found it showing the word INIT. So - obviously the Init code is in there. But, how to I properly implement this ObjCode memo field. Since, its definitely related - and, on the new screen I generated - the Methods field looks fine when I open the Screen like a DBF. However, when I open the Screen AS a Screen - and I look at the Init Method - its mostly Garbage! I'm sure those familiar with the intricacies of Screen Hacking know what I am talking about - and, hopefully can point me in the right direction. TIA, Kurt --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/bd031ecabf2b60499200aab3dbb4a999012bac4...@ex-a-fpl.fpl.LOCAL ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: MORE Screen Hacking a Query...
Hey Fred - I understand what you mean - and that DOES Make sense. I shall try it now... -K- -Original Message- From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Fred Taylor Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 10:29 AM To: profoxt...@leafe.com Subject: Re: MORE Screen Hacking a Query... Leave the OBJCODE field blank and issue a COMPILE FORM yourformname command to build it from your METHOD code. Fred On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Kurt k...@isssusa.com wrote: Hey Folks, I've made a LOT of progress on this Utility I've been working on - to automate conversion of system PRG code to Screens/Forms. However, I've run into a complication that's a bit of a stumper. Just to Prefix the explanation of the problem. To do the Screen Hacking - I create what I call a Base Screen - which has Basic controls in it - including a Container for the creation of required Pop-up windows. I copy that Base Screen to a New screen file - for each program that will be converted. Then I duplicate the basic controls - making copies of the records - to create the new controls on the new screen. I'm now starting to look at implementing Methods - like the Screen Init - in particular, putting into it the Parameters statement from the PRG. I created dummy code - really just Commented code - within the INIT Method in the Base Screen. However, here's the problem. I open up the Base Screen as a DBF file - to look at how that INIT Method is actually implemented. And, of course, I see the Code within the Methods memo field - formatted as a Procedure. No problem there. I got my conversion program to implement that without a problem. The problem lies in the ObjCode memo field. I saw in the Base screen that this ObjCode memo field has cryptically encoded data - lots of strange characters. But, within all those strange characters - I found it showing the word INIT. So - obviously the Init code is in there. But, how to I properly implement this ObjCode memo field. Since, its definitely related - and, on the new screen I generated - the Methods field looks fine when I open the Screen like a DBF. However, when I open the Screen AS a Screen - and I look at the Init Method - its mostly Garbage! I'm sure those familiar with the intricacies of Screen Hacking know what I am talking about - and, hopefully can point me in the right direction. TIA, Kurt --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/55A3F5E7432D42E085B90D47A459347F@Programming2 ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: MORE Screen Hacking a Query...
Hey Dave - thanks for your feedback - sounds similar to Fred's. I'm going to attempt to try it and see if that solves the problem. -K- -Original Message- From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Dave Crozier Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 10:30 AM To: profoxt...@leafe.com Subject: RE: MORE Screen Hacking a Query... Kurt, Off the top of my head, isn't the memo field simply compiled code. Removing it should force a recompilation and apropriate re-constitution of the correct code in the form you are modifying. VFP checks to see that the compiled code matches the source code but sometimes gets it wrong, which is when you need to do exactly what I have described... it's the same for .prg files and their associated .fxp files that need to be deleted, hence forcing a re-compilation. I think this is what you are getting at Dave C -Original Message- From: ProFox [mailto:profox-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Sent: 04 February 2013 15:16 To: profox@leafe.com Subject: MORE Screen Hacking a Query... Hey Folks, I've made a LOT of progress on this Utility I've been working on - to automate conversion of system PRG code to Screens/Forms. However, I've run into a complication that's a bit of a stumper. Just to Prefix the explanation of the problem. To do the Screen Hacking - I create what I call a Base Screen - which has Basic controls in it - including a Container for the creation of required Pop-up windows. I copy that Base Screen to a New screen file - for each program that will be converted. Then I duplicate the basic controls - making copies of the records - to create the new controls on the new screen. I'm now starting to look at implementing Methods - like the Screen Init - in particular, putting into it the Parameters statement from the PRG. I created dummy code - really just Commented code - within the INIT Method in the Base Screen. However, here's the problem. I open up the Base Screen as a DBF file - to look at how that INIT Method is actually implemented. And, of course, I see the Code within the Methods memo field - formatted as a Procedure. No problem there. I got my conversion program to implement that without a problem. The problem lies in the ObjCode memo field. I saw in the Base screen that this ObjCode memo field has cryptically encoded data - lots of strange characters. But, within all those strange characters - I found it showing the word INIT. So - obviously the Init code is in there. But, how to I properly implement this ObjCode memo field. Since, its definitely related - and, on the new screen I generated - the Methods field looks fine when I open the Screen like a DBF. However, when I open the Screen AS a Screen - and I look at the Init Method - its mostly Garbage! I'm sure those familiar with the intricacies of Screen Hacking know what I am talking about - and, hopefully can point me in the right direction. TIA, Kurt --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/B83893490307453589E1AA3ADF1784A2@Programming2 ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: MORE Screen Hacking a Query...
That's the 'p-code' for your compiled methods. You could save those memo contents as a .FXP, then reverse-engineer them back into a PRG with ReFox, for example. ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/1359992708.19652.140661186639069.57fc6...@webmail.messagingengine.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: MORE Screen Hacking a Query...
Wow Alan - that sounds like even More Fun! I think I just read something about that on the Web when searching for a solution to this problem. But, alas - I wasn't finding the right answers on the Web - but, got the Perfect help from Fred Dave here! It worked. Did the Compile command - and now all is just Perfect! Thanks again - and again - the ProFox list Comes THRU In a Pinch! :-) -K- -Original Message- From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Alan Bourke Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 10:45 AM To: profoxt...@leafe.com Subject: Re: MORE Screen Hacking a Query... That's the 'p-code' for your compiled methods. You could save those memo contents as a .FXP, then reverse-engineer them back into a PRG with ReFox, for example. [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/047569C5E17242FC9317E8FC37F0130D@Programming2 ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: MORE Screen Hacking a Query...
Thanks Christof - I already got it resolved by suggestions from others - and I already implemented Blanking of Objcode - besides doing the Compile. -K- -Original Message- From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Christof Wollenhaupt Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 11:06 AM Hi Kurt, you have to blank the OBJCODE field every time you change the METHODS field. Then use COMPILE FORM to compile the SCX file (after closing the file, of course). This creates everything required in the OBJCODE field. The content is a slightly modified version of the FXP file. Blanking the field is important if you update an existing SCX file. If you always create a new one, just leave it empty. Christof ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/BD8C57ADBFD043A0B1D5E9B452982434@Programming2 ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: MORE Screen Hacking a Query...
Its quite true about this Group! Sometimes - if I know the answer to someone's question - I will try to respond Quickly - to beat others to the punchline... :-) -K- -Original Message- From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Christof Wollenhaupt Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 12:36 PM To: profoxt...@leafe.com Subject: Re: MORE Screen Hacking a Query... On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Kurt k...@isssusa.com wrote: Thanks Christof - I already got it resolved by suggestions from others - and I already implemented Blanking of Objcode - besides doing the Compile. Somehow I only see messages with an hour delay, or so There wasn't a reply when I composed my answer. Hard to beat this group with that kind of latency. g --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/3CCF013B1FFF41B0A17E96D9E36FBACC@Programming2 ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: Releasing a form from a docked toolbar.
Use _SCREEN.ActiveForm, not _VFP. Fred On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Chris Davis chr...@actongate.co.uk wrote: Hi All, I have a Top Level Form with two toolbars, which have been docked in code in the activate event. When clicking buttons on these toolbars it fires events on the form. Why am I not able to put thisform.release into one of those methods and call it from a button click on the toolbar? Closing the form with the X works. Addiing a button direct to the form with this.release in the click event works. But a button on the toolbar calling _vfp.activeform.myexitmethod doesn't Thanks Chris. __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CAJCBksoe9antug-pL78=_ibspe8hhhldxtxn1y8cvfr7hoc...@mail.gmail.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: Releasing a form from a docked toolbar.
Thanks Fred, tried that but still the same. -Original Message- From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Fred Taylor Sent: 04 February 2013 17:46 To: profoxt...@leafe.com Subject: Re: Releasing a form from a docked toolbar. Use _SCREEN.ActiveForm, not _VFP. Fred On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Chris Davis chr...@actongate.co.uk wrote: Hi All, I have a Top Level Form with two toolbars, which have been docked in code in the activate event. When clicking buttons on these toolbars it fires events on the form. Why am I not able to put thisform.release into one of those methods and call it from a button click on the toolbar? Closing the form with the X works. Addiing a button direct to the form with this.release in the click event works. But a button on the toolbar calling _vfp.activeform.myexitmethod doesn't Thanks Chris. __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/e72d4f968df0d14fae642ec21a286c29f71bad9...@exccr01store.sl.local ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: Releasing a form from a docked toolbar.
Ah! I will give this a go. -Original Message- From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Christof Wollenhaupt Sent: 04 February 2013 17:47 To: profoxt...@leafe.com Subject: Re: Releasing a form from a docked toolbar. Why am I not able to put thisform.release into one of those methods and call it from a button click on the toolbar? Because you would be releasing code and properties that are still in the call stack, especially if references are involved. One easy way to fix similar problems is to use a timer with a very short interval (10 ms) on the form that releases the form. From the toolbar you merely start the timer. -- Christof --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/e72d4f968df0d14fae642ec21a286c29f71bad9...@exccr01store.sl.local ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: Releasing a form from a docked toolbar.
Thank's Christof works a treat! -Original Message- From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Christof Wollenhaupt Sent: 04 February 2013 17:47 To: profoxt...@leafe.com Subject: Re: Releasing a form from a docked toolbar. Why am I not able to put thisform.release into one of those methods and call it from a button click on the toolbar? Because you would be releasing code and properties that are still in the call stack, especially if references are involved. One easy way to fix similar problems is to use a timer with a very short interval (10 ms) on the form that releases the form. From the toolbar you merely start the timer. -- Christof --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/e72d4f968df0d14fae642ec21a286c29f71bad9...@exccr01store.sl.local ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Guineu project
Hi Christof, Would you mind talking a bit about your Guineu project? How it is going? Are you committed to it? Any links to information on the project? A quick search found this very interesting article, but it's dated back in 2007. http://www.mail-archive.com/profox@leafe.com/msg38551.html Thanks, Bill -Original Message- From: ProfoxTech [mailto:profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Christof Wollenhaupt Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 12:47 PM To: profoxt...@leafe.com Subject: Re: Releasing a form from a docked toolbar. Why am I not able to put thisform.release into one of those methods and call it from a button click on the toolbar? Because you would be releasing code and properties that are still in the call stack, especially if references are involved. One easy way to fix similar problems is to use a timer with a very short interval (10 ms) on the form that releases the form. From the toolbar you merely start the timer. -- Christof --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/000801ce0303$f60570e0$e21052a0$@h2officesolutions.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] BIG Dragon Sculpture - SHORT Video Online...
I can see what you are trying to accomplish and you did cut down on the length. I hate being a nudge. But you lost me. Who are you aiming this video at? Is this is how-to video? Are you training a programmer or an artist? Are you demonstrating the 3D printer? You spent a third of the video flashing screens of programming code at various stages of development. Who would be interested in seeing that? I am a programmer and am interested in doing 3d printing but those shots were wasted on me. If you want to do a how-to then pick out one tiny phase of coding and walk through it step by step showing how you sketch a shape, capture the data and convert to code. You don't have to show how every piece are done; viewers will get the idea just watching one. It is still way too long. You had long sequences showing dragon body segments in various configurations. Is so much of that necessary? Most artists would know that they must be assembled with glue. You don't need to show more than two. Then show the total result. Having you son pop up at the beginning is cute but distracting and adds nothing to the video. Also I doubt that anyone is really interested in hearing your description why you decided to build the model. Each viewer would have his own reasons and needs no justification someone else. He already knows why he wants to do it. Once you decide your audience I would recommend that you get a video production guy and let him put together your video. There are lots of videos on YouTube. The well-done ones can be a half hour or more and I stay with them to the end because they are excellent training tools. Specifically I found some good ones about shaping metal using CNC milling machines. They do not have the author doing a talking head but showing his hands turning cranks, etc. to get the job done. These are my quick impressions and don't reflect on your artistic ability only that you are trying to learn how to create a video which is a totally different animal. which even a professional can fail. Good luck Nick - Original Message - From: Kurt @ VR-FX v...@optonline.net To: profox@leafe.com Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 7:20 PM Subject: [NF] BIG Dragon Sculpture - SHORT Video Online... Hey folks, A while ago I uploaded a video to YouTube - about the production process for my Very Big Chinese Dragon Sculpture/Prototype - which I produced using my MakerBot CupCake CNC 3D Printer. A number of the folks n this list suggested that I make an Abridged version of the Video - since it was quite long at about 25 minutes. Well, I finally got around to making that video, and also based it upon suggestions here - like mainly images w/Text explanations - and background music. There is only about 3 short segments of actual video footage used in this new video version. And, this version is now only about 7 minutes long. So -if you want to check it out - you can find it here: http://youtu.be/VPP2M0IMSj4 And - for those local to the NYC/LI area - the Dragon is actually going on display in March. I will have a number of my 3D printer projects exhibited at the Cultural Center in Stonybrook - along with a number of other artists. So - feel free to stop by if you are in the area! L8r, -K- [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/054615818A7C4DF5AFE68505FA485C80@dual ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] perplexing Zip/Excel problem
Just wonderingthe folks that have this problem, are they using the same OS? Same OS level? Mike Original Message Subject: [NF] perplexing Zip/Excel problem From: M Jarvis brewda...@gmail.com To: profoxt...@leafe.com Date: 2/4/2013 1:16 PM I am having a very perplexing problem opening an XLSX spreadsheet... Actually I can open it fine, it's a couple of users that are having the problem. We have a couple of files parked on our intranet server done in Excel 2010. When these users click on the web link instead of opening with Excel like they normally would, they are prompted with a Do you want to open or save this file? dialog, it shows the file name as being XLSX, but the little icon is appearing as a compressed folder icon rather than the green X thingy. I tried the obvious stuff first by confirming file associations for both Excel and Zip - they were fine, but I re-associated them anyway. Compatibility Pack - googling suggested it might be the compatibility pack for Office so I uninstalled that. No change. I told IE7 to Open file based on extension rather than content - no joy. I read that the XLSX format is indeed a compressed file format, but no one else (that I know of - yet) is having any problems with these two files. We've been using them for years... Navigating to the folder where the files live, double clicking, opens them just fine. Going into Excel, navigating to the files, opens them just fine. And of course it's a major hassle to get access to one of these computers to mess around with trying to find a solution for them - argh... Any other suggestions for things to try? ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/51100a15.3040...@ggisoft.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] perplexing Zip/Excel problem
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Mike Copeland m...@ggisoft.com wrote: Just wonderingthe folks that have this problem, are they using the same OS? Same OS level? Mike Sorry - forgot to mention XP SP 3... one user is next to me here in the IT dept and she's 100% patched and such and has the problem. -- Matt Jarvis Eugene, Oregon USA ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CAPT54rbiwnrJ085nFVk_p=g_tja9rreotvbmtgxjng83pyo...@mail.gmail.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [NF] perplexing Zip/Excel problem
M Jarvis wrote on 2013-02-04: On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Mike Copeland m...@ggisoft.com wrote: Just wonderingthe folks that have this problem, are they using the same OS? Same OS level? Mike Sorry - forgot to mention XP SP 3... one user is next to me here in the IT dept and she's 100% patched and such and has the problem. Jarvis, Which browsers fail? All installed on the machine? Tracy Pearson PowerChurch Software ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/002e01ce030e$4caf1090$e60d31b0$@powerchurch.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] perplexing Zip/Excel problem
*Is your internet server an Apache server?* * * *Linux using 'magic' to look at the files contents and determines that an XLSX file is, in fact, a ZIP file. (It is!)* * * *Internet Explorer gets the MIME content from the Apache server telling it that an XLSX file is a ZIP file and, in its wisdom, adds .zip to the end of the file. And Windows hides the file extension, just to wrap the whole problem up in a neat little bow.* * * *Oh, and when you try to look at it in Explorer, it helpfully opens the file as if it were a folder, so you see a manifest file and other such ugly internals of an XLSX file that should never see the light of day.* * * *The solution is to add a couple of MIME types to the Apache config.* * * *If this is your situation, and you have trouble Googling it, drop me a line and I'll look up the settings I made recently on a client machine.* * * On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:16 PM, M Jarvis brewda...@gmail.com wrote: I am having a very perplexing problem opening an XLSX spreadsheet... Actually I can open it fine, it's a couple of users that are having the problem. We have a couple of files parked on our intranet server done in Excel 2010. When these users click on the web link instead of opening with Excel like they normally would, they are prompted with a Do you want to open or save this file? dialog, it shows the file name as being XLSX, but the little icon is appearing as a compressed folder icon rather than the green X thingy. I tried the obvious stuff first by confirming file associations for both Excel and Zip - they were fine, but I re-associated them anyway. Compatibility Pack - googling suggested it might be the compatibility pack for Office so I uninstalled that. No change. I told IE7 to Open file based on extension rather than content - no joy. I read that the XLSX format is indeed a compressed file format, but no one else (that I know of - yet) is having any problems with these two files. We've been using them for years... Navigating to the folder where the files live, double clicking, opens them just fine. Going into Excel, navigating to the files, opens them just fine. And of course it's a major hassle to get access to one of these computers to mess around with trying to find a solution for them - argh... Any other suggestions for things to try? -- Matt Jarvis Eugene, Oregon USA [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CACW6n4uTEnwVsY7gwmBhk=lxsha2x2xkpuzl+rodb28rpba...@mail.gmail.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] perplexing Zip/Excel problem
On 02/04/13 11:16 AM, M Jarvis wrote: I am having a very perplexing problem opening an XLSX spreadsheet... Actually I can open it fine, it's a couple of users that are having the problem. I believe the problem is that IE7 can't handle an .xlsx file. The .xlsx is only from Excel 2010, and is really a zip file containing about 10 zipped up XML files - you can't open it in Excel 2007 either, because nothing before 2010 knows about it. IE 9 handles it fine, but you can't use IE 9 on XP. Solution: Have the Excel 2010 user save it as .xls, and everybody will be happy. Dan Covill San Diego ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/511016dc.2050...@san.rr.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Fox on other OS, (was Fast scanner)
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Ken Kixmoeller (ProFox) foxh...@information-architecture.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Paul McNett p...@ulmcnett.com wrote: Gee, I found Eclipse to be incredibly daunting, too. Too much so for me to bother with. I thought it was just another example of the deterioration of the stuff between my ears, since everybody (not here) seemed to rave about it. Nice to know that you (obviously with no such deterioration) found it that way, too. Add another vote there! I used Eclipse for a couple of Ruby in Rails projects, and found it slow and difficult to maintain. Having come from the tightly-integrated IDE of FoxPro, I thought this would be a gentler introduction into FOSS tools, but found it really got in the way. These days, a terminal, a browser and a ViM session are all I need. -- Ted Roche Ted Roche Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/cacw6n4ts8ey-yxmgcvws5-evwtn5beq_zgwkjv+jd9my80p...@mail.gmail.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Fox on other OS, (was Fast scanner)
On 2/4/13 12:15 PM, Ken Kixmoeller (ProFox) wrote: On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Paul McNett p...@ulmcnett.com wrote: Eclipse or Visual Studio extremely difficult to use, and my productivity would tank. Gee, I found Eclipse to be incredibly daunting, too. Too much so for me to bother with. I thought it was just another example of the deterioration of the stuff between my ears, since everybody (not here) seemed to rave about it. Nice to know that you (obviously with no such deterioration) found it that way, too. I suspect there are probably some nice things I'm missing by not using an IDE, but I haven't tried an IDE yet that didn't annoy me in some way. Like you, I think this is some deficiency in me, not in the IDE, since so many people find so much success with them. To be productive, I must have a streamlined workflow and not get derailed by anything but my code. My toolchain works for me: + git or subversion + linux + python + vim with Python syntax coloring + xterm, many opened at once for editing and testing + all the useful *nix utilities like grep and sed + dabo + a laptop computer with no external devices so I can work anywhere. + LibreOffice for opening the xlsx and docx files people send me. + Windows via a virtual machine for testing and deploying to 99% of my users. Those last two items are 99% of what annoys me about my setup. The main thing that I've stuck to doing, even though it takes more time upfront, is hand-coding my GUI instead of using any kind of visual designer. This has gotten easier and still doesn't seem very tedious, as long as I divide and group similar things together in their own panels and then put the panels together on the form later - if I tried designing a whole complex form by hand I'd probably go out of my mind. The one visual design tool that I use, I made myself: Dabo's Report Designer. It isn't polished like I wish it were, but it does work for 100% of my use cases so far (when it doesn't, I fix it). Even then, for already-designed reports, there's a 50/50 chance I'll just open it in vim and edit the xml directly, since that is more straightforward and I can usually get the edits done in the time it takes the report to open in the designer. Your mileage will vary. Paul ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/51102aa1.6020...@ulmcnett.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Fox on other OS, (was Fast scanner)
On 2/4/13 12:25 PM, Ted Roche wrote: Add another vote there! I used Eclipse for a couple of Ruby in Rails projects, and found it slow and difficult to maintain. Having come from the tightly-integrated IDE of FoxPro, I thought this would be a gentler introduction into FOSS tools, but found it really got in the way. These days, a terminal, a browser and a ViM session are all I need. I probably judged Eclipse too quickly to be fair, because I downloaded it, installed it, used it to make one test Java project, and at the end of the day said 'this isn't the language, nor the ide, for me.' It has probably improved over time: this was in probably 2002. Paul ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/51102b27.2010...@ulmcnett.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Fox on other OS, (was Fast scanner)
On 2/4/2013 4:58 PM, Ken Kixmoeller (ProFox) wrote: There we part ways a bit. Being still a bit typing-impaired, I find a tool which auto-fills variable/function/object names helps me a lot. Especially since I subscribe to LongDescriptiveFunctionNames(WhichHelp,TheMushySpace,BetweenMyEars) ...reminds me of Anthony Testi. He was a superoverlylongwindedvariablename kind of guy iirc. -- Mike Babcock, MCP MB Software Solutions, LLC President, Chief Software Architect http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com http://fabmate.com http://twitter.com/mbabcock16 ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/51103102.8010...@mbsoftwaresolutions.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Fox on other OS, (was Fast scanner)
On Feb 4, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Ken Kixmoeller (ProFox) foxh...@information-architecture.com wrote: These days, a terminal, a browser and a ViM session are all I need. There we part ways a bit. Being still a bit typing-impaired, I find a tool which auto-fills variable/function/object names helps me a lot. Especially since I subscribe to LongDescriptiveFunctionNames(WhichHelp,TheMushySpace,BetweenMyEars) Just in case you didn't know, vim has auto-completion, too. I couldn't work very well without it. -- Ed Leafe ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/c90c8347-3e8e-404d-a660-68a70307e...@rackspace.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Fox on other OS, (was Fast scanner)
On Feb 4, 2013, at 3:39 PM, Paul McNett p...@ulmcnett.com wrote: I suspect there are probably some nice things I'm missing by not using an IDE, but I haven't tried an IDE yet that didn't annoy me in some way. Like you, I think this is some deficiency in me, not in the IDE, since so many people find so much success with them. When I worked in Java, I couldn't imagine *not* using an IDE. There was just so much boilerplate stuff that the IDE could supply that I would have otherwise had to type (and probably forget a few). It was a real benefit to define something, and have the IDE fill in all the supporting code that was needed. Once I switched to Python, though, IDEs didn't buy me anything. I stuck with BBEdit on the Mac for a long time (still use it for some things), but a few years ago I made the switch to vim and haven't regretted it for a minute. When I spin up a new server one of the first things I copy over are my .bash_aliases and .vimrc files. -- Ed Leafe ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/f9ae8e39-7cdf-4481-b955-474c11ad0...@rackspace.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Fox on other OS, (was Fast scanner)
On 2/4/13 2:11 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: These days, a terminal, a browser and a ViM session are all I need. There we part ways a bit. Being still a bit typing-impaired, I find a tool which auto-fills variable/function/object names helps me a lot. Especially since I subscribe to LongDescriptiveFunctionNames(WhichHelp,TheMushySpace,BetweenMyEars) Just in case you didn't know, vim has auto-completion, too. I couldn't work very well without it. Do you use the built-in autocomplete or something else? Paul ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/51103662.5060...@ulmcnett.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Fox on other OS, (was Fast scanner)
On Feb 4, 2013, at 4:29 PM, Paul McNett p...@ulmcnett.com wrote: Do you use the built-in autocomplete or something else? Built-in - what more could you need? ;-) -- Ed Leafe ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/5e1ec2cf-2845-4a67-a61e-0394ad207...@rackspace.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Fox on other OS, (was Fast scanner)
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Ed Leafe ed.le...@rackspace.com wrote: Just in case you didn't know, vim has auto-completion, too. I couldn't work very well without it. And support for multiple windows, multiple buffers, a built-in scripting language, a rich community of plugins that can add functionality like file managers, source code control, and pretty much anything else you can imagine. It can be another time-waster up there with picking your terminal font :) -- Ted Roche Ted Roche Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/cacw6n4umk+b2dn0hnakxjkoghnwjujnfc3n4obzhmhrjz8h...@mail.gmail.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Fox on other OS, (was Fast scanner)
On 2/4/13 2:30 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: Do you use the built-in autocomplete or something else? Built-in - what more could you need? ;-) Well unless I'm missing something the built-in one has no idea what namespace context we are in when suggesting completions, and it doesn't complete method arguments, etc. Paul ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/511041ca.2000...@ulmcnett.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Fox on other OS, (was Fast scanner)
On Feb 4, 2013, at 5:18 PM, Paul McNett p...@ulmcnett.com wrote: Well unless I'm missing something the built-in one has no idea what namespace context we are in when suggesting completions, and it doesn't complete method arguments, etc. Ah, I see what you mean. No, I don't miss any of that, but I can see how others might. I just want it to autocomplete what I'm typing; I don't need it to understand my code for me. -- Ed Leafe ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/d159ab0d-9019-4c6f-8d8c-51d100967...@rackspace.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Fox on other OS, (was Fast scanner)
Yeah, I agree: simple auto-complete is enough. Now that I have completely hijacked this thread: My apologies. Ken On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Ed Leafe ed.le...@rackspace.com wrote: On Feb 4, 2013, at 5:18 PM, Paul McNett p...@ulmcnett.com wrote: Well unless I'm missing something the built-in one has no idea what namespace context we are in when suggesting completions, and it doesn't complete method arguments, etc. Ah, I see what you mean. No, I don't miss any of that, but I can see how others might. I just want it to autocomplete what I'm typing; I don't need it to understand my code for me. -- Ed Leafe [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CAFyV=lnpwntsncxjg8fbreubstkdyz1mjwkrmbtto5lozpp...@mail.gmail.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: Guineu project
Christof, Would you mind talking a bit about your Guineu project? How it is going? Are you committed to it? Any links to information on the project? A difficult topic... How is it going? Slowly. Am I committed? Yes, but regular business has priority. When I started the project 2006 my world looked different. On the technical side Nokia was dominating the cell phone market and Windows CE/PocketPC/Windows Mobile a viable alternative. I was an independent freelancer with half a dozen FoxPro clients working on a dozen projects at the same time. Most of my work was revolving around solving technical VFP problems. Guineu was a nice project to relax in the evening. These days I have employees and a new born to take care of. My daily work alternates between managing a company, working with non-developer customers and maintaining a FoxPro DOS app. My evenings are filled with changing diapers. On the technical side Microsoft and I are going separate ways mostly. On the mobile market neither they, nor Nokia are relevant anymore, except on niche markets such as scanner solutions. What does that mean for Guineu... Well, just right now I'm creating a scanner solution for a client using Guineu on a Skorpio X3 scanner (the latest ones from Datalogic). In the course I've added a few small features that have not been published. So, I am using Guineu in production and I still think that scanners and similar devices are a great niche for Guineu. The past few months (actually since around mid 2012) I've been preparing the Guineu source code to release it to open source, as frankly, I can't maintain it on a commercial level. That's mostly a resource issue, not necessarily a money issue. That too is going slower than expected, as right now the source code is a mess with comments in two languages, half-finished refactorings, code snippets where I need to complete credits and some parts where I need to clarify license and copyrights of code snippets I was using. Implementing Guineu has also become more challenging... My initial release only had two major platforms to support: The compact framework and the full-blown desktop framework. I added special cases like SQL server integration, ASP.NET web forms and ActiveX controls, which never were much in demand. Nowadays, though, you would need to support an integrated WPF and Silverlight solution for the desktop that combines Visual Studio and the Guineu runtime, maybe marrying this with the VFP Studio project that also kind of came to a halt. You would need a Windows RT and Windows Phone integration. Both of these platforms are hard to translate from a traditional VFP form, which also means integration into Visual Studio. Many requests have been for iOS and Android integration. Technically, both would be possible with MonoTouch and MonoDroid/Xamarin. But that's even more platforms to support that don't translate well from the classical VFP app. Not to mention Azure which would also support Guineu. That said, I'm definitely open for suggestions. Thanks for the detailed reply. Quoting from your reply to Malcolm back in 2007: Guineu targets the VFP developer who basically wants to remain a VFP developer, but needs new platforms (especially the PDA) and the confidence that their application will continue to work on new versions of Windows (beyond Vista) after 2015. That hit some high notes for me. I'd hope to see you keep the big picture project going for the longer term, and in the shorter term, as you're doing, focus on smaller, niche apps that can do well in a global market while still advancing the technology. Scanner apps sound like a great example. Best wishes for your new baby! Bill ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/001101ce0353$1fc70a70$5f551f50$@h2officesolutions.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] Fox on other OS, (was Fast scanner)
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013, at 09:41 PM, Paul McNett wrote: It has probably improved over time: this was in probably 2002. It's no Visual Studio, but it's pretty good and very flexible, although it does have an insanely complicated preferences system. Anyway - a seasoned shell and text editor jockey is effectively using their own loosely-coupled IDE anyway. ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/1360050105.32111.140661186960885.36d10...@webmail.messagingengine.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
